The Epigravettian and the Magdalenian in Poland: New chronological data and an old problem

One of the most intriguing issues concerning the prehistory of the late Pleistocene is the period between 20000 and 15000 cal BP, when a harsh climate, natural and demographic changes occurred in Central Europe. It is believed that at that time the dynamics of occupation and cultural landscape also changed (Terberger and Street, 2002; Svoboda and Novák, 2004). Until recently, it was maintained that the reoccupation of part of this area, which is located north of the Carpathians and the Sudetes took place only due to the Magdalenian people (see remarks Street et al., 2009). Limited data allowed only to suggest that the Epigravettian groups could have appeared incidentally in these areas, exploiting these territories in non-systematic manner (e.g. Kozłowski, 1992, 2007). The Epigravettian settlement refuges were situated in the south, i.e. in Slovakia (Kaminská, 2014) and Czech Republic (Nerudová and Neruda, 2015).

In recent years, considering Polish territories, thanks to new research projects as well as rescue excavations, the amount of new chronometric data concerning both the Epigravettian and the Magdalenian have increased (e.g. Wilczyński, 2009; Połtowicz-Bobak, 2012).

These two cultural units are different mainly with regard to the methods of lithic production. Even though the blanks production in both cases was directed towards getting blades, due to different methods of core treatment, clear differences are noticeable. They can be observed, for instance, in the case of the Epigravettian where the blades with flat butts predominated, while as for the Magdalenian blades with en éperon butts were present. Moreover, the differences can be seen in the treatment of certain tools, such as backed blades. In our opinion, the people of these two discussed units also implemented the slightly different mobility strategies, and in some cases they managed stone raw materials in different ways (see further comments: Wilczyński, 2009;Wiśniewski et al., 2012a, where further literature, Połtowicz-Bobak, 2013).

Therefore, these data lead us to ask new questions regarding the course of recolonization of the area situated from the north of the Carpathians and the Sudetes during the period from 19000 to 15000 cal BP. The first question explores the issue whether it is possible to talk about the recolonization inspired solely by the groups of the Magdalenian culture, or we are dealing with a more complex picture of penetration into the Subcarpathian territories? If so, the next question is if the chronological records allow us to assume the possibility of coexistence of populations ‘producing’ the Epigravettian and the Magdalenian assemblages at the same time?

Considering the outlined issue, we would like to present the results of the analysis of a series of absolute dates obtained by means of the radiocarbon AMS method, as well as the conventional one, and the OSL method for the samples coming from the sites located in Silesia and Lesser Poland (Fig. 1). We focus on the largest assemblages from Polish territory, in case of which there are no taxonomic doubts and those which recently obtained a reliable chronological interpretation.

Figure 1

The analysis of absolute dating was performed by constructing a series of Bayesian models by means of the OxCal 4.2 software (Bronk Ramsey, 2009a), using the calibration curve IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013). Chronological ranges of various phases modelled in this way have presented a higher level of reliability than those designated by a simple choice of extreme dates as indicators of the beginning and the end of given settlement episode (see Wood, 2015).

The results show that the existing model of recolonization of Polish territory is not as clear as it seemed. The most important result of the analysis is the determination of coexistence of the Magdalenian and the Epigravettian assemblages in the same areas and at the same time. It seems, however, that the coexistence of the Epigravettian and the Magdalenian is currently better confirmed for the older period of the Magdalenian, represented by the assemblage from Maszycka Cave. The results allow us to consider the possibility of overlapping the Epigravettian and late Magdalenian settlement in later period (16500–15000 cal BP).

This paper deals with assemblages commonly identified with the so-called Epigravettian and the Magdalenian cultures. Like many other archaeologists, we believe that the two taxonomic units are the expression of different traditions, which of course is not synonymous with the assumption that both groups represent different populations in genetic terms.

In our paper, we have considered mainly 6 sites which provided 56 radiocarbon dates and 4 OSL dates, placing the remains in the GS-2 and GI-1. The aforementioned sites are worth noting because of more numerous and more representative inventories in typo-technological terms, and therefore an assessment of their taxonomic affiliation does not raise any doubt. The data come from the sites that were excavated in a systematic way, often for many seasons. Apart from the basic group of sites, the sites (in the number of 8) with a small number of artefacts have been included in our considerations, as well as the ones with ambiguous dating, even though sometimes they provided relatively rich inventories (Fig. 1). We have not included the assemblages in the analysis which did not receive absolute dating records.

In total, (after the rejection of a part of dates) 53 ¹⁴C dates and 4 OSL dates were used in the research (Table 1). Most of the radiocarbon dates were obtained using the AMS method.

Speaking of the sites, they are located in southern Poland. Most of them are open sites, situated in the upland areas. A small amount of artefacts is represented by the remains coming from caves or rock shelters.

Below we have presented the data concerning the Epigravettian and the Magdalenian sites, emphasizing the issue of dating. As already pointed out, we would like to focus on the sites with a representative number of artefacts, which recently have received a series of numerical dates. We have discussed separately the sites which do not meet these criteria, even though they are included in the Epigravettian or the Magdalenian.

Table 2 shows the results of modelling for the confidence level of 68.2% and 95.4%, but further reasoning was based on the data obtained for 2 sigma, i.e. with the probability of 95.4% (Fig. 2). Although the results of the modelling were generated with an accuracy of one year, they are rounded up to 10 in the Table 1 and as for the subsequent analysis the dates and time intervals are given in full hundreds of years.

Figure 2

The first step in the model evaluation is the analysis of the agreement indices. For these indices, the values above 60% are assumed acceptable (Bronk Ramsey, 1995, 2009a). The entire model presents both high agreement index (A_model), as well as the overall agreement index (A_overall). Also, the results of individual agreement index (A) and convergence integral (C) for individual dates usually reach values close to 100%, although there are the exceptions i.e. two dates from Maszycka Cave (Ly-2453 and Ly-2454), for which A fell below 60%. However, the researchers decided not to remove these dates from the model, because the results of outlier analysis for this site did not indicate clearly the need for their rejection. It should be also taken into account that, as it was pointed out by Bronk Ramsey (2009b) ‘1 in 20 samples are likely to fall below this level and such rejection should also be based on other criteria’. In the case of Maszycka Cave such a criterion can be both the time when the dates were established (the ‘older’ dates are clearly different from the younger dates), as well as the dating method (conventional and AMS ones). Finally, considering primarily a slight deviation from the 60% threshold, it was decided to leave these dates in the model. In summary, the obtained values of diagnostic parameters allow us to assume that in the light of the analysed data the model has been constructed properly, it is internally consistent and, thus, does not provide a formal basis for the rejection of its results.

As mentioned above, the models were constructed with the assumption of overlapping phases. Three settlement phases were separated: the Epigravettian, the middle Magdalenian (represented only by Maszycka Cave) and the younger Magdalenian one. The following data were obtained: –

dates of the beginning (Boundary start) and the end(Boundary end) of each of the analysed settlement episodes,

Both models gave similar results. The only difference is the modelled end of the Epigravettian settlement on the analysed area.

According to the Model 1, the beginning of the Epigravettian settlement in Poland can be dated to the period between 23000 and 20500 cal BP, while the end fell into the period between 17400 and 13900 cal BP. The duration of the Epigravettian settlement ranges from 3700 to 8300 years. Such a significant margin of error is caused mainly by large margins of error for dates from chronologically ‘outermost’ sites: Deszczowa Cave and Krakow-Spadzista, determining the beginning of the settlement, as well as Sowin 7 and Zawalona Cave, being chronologically the youngest Epigravettian sites. In Model 2, where some of the questionable dates were not taken into consideration, the range changes significantly. The phase starts, as in Model 1, between 23000 and 20500 cal BP, but its end falls in the years between 17900 and 15700 cal BP with span of 2800–7100 years.

In the case of Maszycka Cave, a short duration of the settlement episode (see Kozłowski et al., 1995, 2012) is well confirmed by the modelled dates. The beginning of this episode can be placed between 18900 and 18100 cal BP, while its end — between 18300 and 17500 cal BP, and the duration from 0 to 1200 years. It should be emphasized that this period probably should be narrowed down significantly. After the rejection of older dates (in terms of the time when the analysis was conducted), i.e. Ly-2453 and Ly-2454, the period would be significantly reduced.

The last, the youngest of the analysed settlement episodes (the late Magdalenian one) started between 16500 and 16000 cal BP, and it ended in the period between 13100 and 12700 cal BP, and its modelled duration amounted between 2900 and 3600 years.

Query Difference allowed us to calculate the hiatus duration or the period of overlapping not completely simultaneous events, i.e. the period between the Epigravettian and the late Magdalenian settlement as well as the period between the late Magdalenian settlement and the episode from Maszycka Cave. In both of the models, the Maszycka settlement episode falls completely into chronological range of the Epigravettian settlement. The chronological gap between the middle and late Magdalenian lasted from 1300 to 2200 years.

In the case of the late Magdalenian and the Epigravettian settlement, the situation is more complex. According to Model 1, it is possible that the two episodes overlapped (in the period of up to 2300 years), or there was a gap between them lasting up to 1200 years. The probability matrix of possible relations of the phases, generated by Order query and visualised by a prob.phases.relat.r script (Fig. 3) show that the possibility of overlapping is 0.66 and the probability of the gap between them equals 0.34. Model 2 gives us a completely different result of these relations: there is only a slight (0.09) possibility of overlapping these two phases and the settlement hiatus between them is much more probable (0.91).

Figure 3

The data presented above allow us to discuss some important issues. The first of them concerns an attempt to determine the authors of Central European recolonization immediately after the end of the LGM. In the case of areas situated west from the Elbe River, it is assumed, of course, that the recolonization took place thanks to the Magdalenian culture including its ancestors. The model (today criticized) of pioneering and residential phases was accepted previously (Housley et al., 1997 vs. Blockley et al., 2000). Until recently, the same model was regarded for the area located between the Odra River and the Bug River (e.g. Kozłowski, 1964, 1985, 1987; Kozłowski and Kozłowski, 1977; Połtowicz-Bobak, 2013 and others). In this paper, we propose a different model, which assumes that the process of recolonization was of complex nature in terms of cultural diversity. This is indicated by the remains of two groupings, i.e. the Magdalenian culture and the Epigravettian culture dated to the same period. This period is obviously quite significant because it could range up to 2300 years. Both groupings exploited the same biomes: steppe and steppe-tundra. Malacological data and study on rodents from Zawalona Cave revealed the presence of species typical of a cold and temperate climate (Alexandrowicz et al., 1992). It is very likely that in the area of Poland both groups exploited similar fauna. The data from the site Targowisko (Wilczyński, 2009) and Maszycka Cave (Kozłowski et al., 1995) indicate the presence of a reindeer and a horse. The same taxa occurred in layer E of Zawalona Cave (Alexandrowicz et al., 1992). What is more, the fact that remains of both groupings contain the evidence of penetration of the same geographical regions draws our attention. This is indicated by the lithic raw materials imported from the Carpathians region (see Kaminská 2001; Přichystal, 2009). They are, amongst others, radiolarites and obsidian recorded in the Epigravettian assemblages from Sowin and Targowisko (Wilczyński, 2009) and radiolarites in the inventory from Dzierżysław (Połtowicz-Bobak, 2012) and Wilczyce (Królik, 2014).

The second question concerns the determination of chronological framework of the Magdalenian and the Epigravettian coexistence. Based on the model 1 presented in this paper, the period of possible ‘coexistence’ could range between 18500 and 13900 years ago. The younger border of this range is defined by the Magdalenian sites Dzierżysław 35 and Wilczyce as well as the supplementary data from Zalas Cave, and the data from the Epigravettian site Sowin 7. The dates for the inventory from Zawalona Cave are similar, but due to the small number it cannot be relied upon. Dating of the Epigravettian assemblage from Sowin 7 also is not certain because it refers to the chronology of the mineral deposit, which contains artefacts. It seems that this assemblage may be a bit older. Taking this into account, the younger boundary of overlapping the Magdalenian and the Epigravettian remains at the moment should be treated with caution (model 2). The older border of overlapping the Magdalenian and the Epigravettian assemblages is determined by the remains of the middle phase of the Magdalenian culture from Maszycka Cave and the Epigravettian assemblage from Targowisko. It should be emphasized that both assemblages obtained a relatively large number of homogeneous dates. This makes the lower range more certain than the upper limit. Chronological overlapping between the two entities, whose representatives used almost the same regional sources, provokes us into asking questions about their relationship. Taking into account the previous discussions and results presented in this paper, one can consider the legitimacy of three models.

In the first model, it is suggested that the Epigravettian acted as a substrate for the Magdalenian expanding from a Central European centre located in the Carpathian zone (Maier, 2015). Therefore, the Epigravettian assemblages from Poland in this sense are the traces of the Magdalenian centre progenitors. In our opinion, this model is currently difficult to accept. Its biggest weakness lies in the fact that, in the light of current data, overlapping dating of Epigravettian and Magdalenian assemblages is visible. The assemblages from Targowisko and possibly from Sowin 7 seem to be younger or simultaneous with some Magdalenian assemblages, such as Maszycka Cave or Dzierżysław 35. Another weakness of this model lies in the lack of evidence of the presence regarding several Magdalenian centres. On the contrary, in older and middle phases stylistic connections between western and eastern area are visible (see e.g. Kozłowski et al., 1995; Ginter et al., 2005). This model contradicts also the results of technological analyses of Epigravettian and Magdalenian assemblages, showing large differences in production of basic blanks, i.e. blades and the lack of technological continuum (seee.g. Pyżewicz et al., 2014; Wilczyński, 2009;Wiśniewski et al., 2012a). It should be also noted that population of both groupings probably occupied the territories north of the Carpathians and the Sudetes in a slightly different way. The Epigravettian remains evidence high mobility. The available data suggest the use of the residential system (see further Wiśniewski et al., 2012a). Whereas, in the case of the Magdalenian, it is possible to notice an increased diversity of Magdalenian assemblages during the time, in terms of size and structure (Połtowicz-Bobak, 2013). Therefore, the assemblages recoding the traces of a short stay can be identified, and it cannot be ruled out, that they can be limited to a narrow range of tasks associated with obtaining raw materials or food supply (e.g. Sowin 7, upper level, Hlomcza). What is more, the remains of camps used repeatedly (Dzierżysław 35, Klementowice, Wilczyce) may be noticed. It can be assumed that the colonization in the area situated to the north of the Carpathians between the Odra River and the Bug River basins might have had a logistical character in the middle phase of the Magdalenian culture.

Another model, that can be tentatively called the model of ‘displacement or replacement’ of the Epigravettian population by more numerous, coming from the west Magdalenian groups, indicates a possibility of adopting Magdalenian innovations by local Epigravettian groups (see Wilczyński, 2009). Its probability is strengthened by the fact of a relatively long period of possible interactions, which lasted (according to the dates) approximately more than 2000 years. Its weakness, like the previous model, is the lack of evidence of adoption of even some elements by any of the communities. While not dismissing the model No. 2, in our opinion, a more likely scenario is the ‘model of independent coexistence’ of representatives of the Epigravettian and the Magdalenian group-s. This period roughly coincides with the early and middle phase of development of the Magdalenian culture in Central Europe. Basic facts indicating such a scenario are primarily the ones shown above, that is overlapping absolute dating, and the absence of evidence of interactions between individual groups which might have resulted for example in technological or typological borrowings. At the same time, it seems that one should not exclude the possibility of contacts between the two communities as evidenced by the imports of stone raw materials found at Magdalenian sites from the areas already beyond the reach of the Magdalenians and within the range of the Epigravettian groups. These imports are known also from older and younger sites, corresponding to the later phase of the Magdalenian settlement (e.g. Volhynia flint from Maszycka Cave and Wierzawice, Slovak limnoquartzite from the site Łąka). The possibility of contact is also indicated by the fact of occupation of the same geographical and ecological zone as well as the necessity of exploitation of the same raw material sources.

Considering the possibility of overlapping of both groupings traces in some areas, it is necessary to mention the anthropological findings. Based on them, it can be stated that the exploration of territory inhabited by another group is possible. However, the existence of social or economic relations between newcomers and local hunters needs to take place. It should be noted that the territories do not have clearly defined boundaries, and besides, they can change over time, even during a year (Kelly, 2013). R. Kelly points out (2013) that we should not be involved in the studies of territoriality in the modern meaning, but we should aim to evaluate the manner and range of access to various areas and sources located there. Low density of settlement and scattered sources in upland areas between 18^th and 15^th millennium BP could have resulted in the lack of their permanent protection due to negative advantage rate resulting from such actions (according to Economic Defensibility Model, Dyson-Hudson and Smith, 1978). This, in turn, might have facilitated access to sources to ‘external’ groups.

A similar ‘chronological and taxonomic’ situation is observed in areas of the Czech Republic, while there are perceptible differences between Moravia and Bohemia. Speaking of these areas, there are several sites, both Epigravettian and Magdalenian, which provided radiocarbon dates. The Epigravettian sites prove the episodic presence of the population of this taxonomic unit in the areas of both Bohemia and Moravia, first in the 19^th and 18^th millennium BP (Stránská skála IV, Svobodné Dvory) (Verpoorte and Šída, 2009; Šída et al., 2006), and then in the 15^th millennium BP. The latter mentioned period determines the sites Brno Štýřice III (Nerudová et al., 2012, Nerudová and Neruda, 2015) and Velké Pavlovice (14460 ± 230 BP GRN-16139, Valoch, 2010), i.e. the most important for our consideration Moravian Epigravettian sites. These two sites define well the end of the Epigravettian settlement.

The oldest Magdalenian sites come from caves Balcarova skála (13930 ± 100 BPGRN-28448; Valoch and Neruda, 2005) and Nová Drátenická (the oldest date 13870 ± 140 BP OxA-1953; Svoboda et al., 1995). Regarding the second case, the site dating is so problematic that the cited date is one of three; two other dates were much younger which made the site chronology uncertain. Slightly younger are the traces of settlement from a number of sites dated to GS-2.1a (Pekárna Cave, Žitného Cave, Moravia), KoněpruskCave (Bohemia), open sites Putim and Keblice (Bohemia) (Połtowicz-Bobak et al., 2014, there further references). It is worth noting that there was a clearer, lasting for about five thousand year hiatus between the Epigravettian and the Magdalenian settlement in Bohemia, while in Moravia the situation is similar to that observed in Poland. The dates modelling indicates that the youngest Epigravettian and the oldest Magdalenian dates may overlap. Inference regarding dating of the Moravian sites is burdened, however, with much greater degree of uncertainty due to the fact that these sites usually have one date or a few but very strongly divergent, therefore, it makes the interpretation difficult.

The presented study focusing on the analysis of dating of the Epigravettian and Magdalenian assemblages led us to several conclusions. Firstly, the research indicates that the Epigravettian and the Magdalenian could have existed in Central Europe, probably with many gaps, simultaneously for about 4500 years. Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to specify the framework dates, but it seems that it happened between 18500 and 13900 years BP, while the older part of this period belongs to the middle phase of the Magdalenian represented by the Maszycka Cave episode. Possible coexistence of the Epigravettian and late Magdalenian groups can be placed between 16500 and 13900 years BP, regarding the aforementioned reservations. Secondly, these groups probably used the same sources, e.g. rock raw materials in Polish territories, exploiting the same areas of similar or even identical climate and natural conditions. Taking into account the wider chronological perspective, namely the period from 20000 to 13000 years, it seems that the Epigravettian culture, probably represented by various groups, about 15000 years ago disappeared from the area located west from the Bug River, while the dominant grouping became the population representing the Magdalenian patterns. Nevertheless, the interaction between the Epigravettian and Magdalenian groups has still remained an unsolved issue. However, we do not eliminate the possibility of contacts. If they had taken place, they did not leave traces in the material culture of the Epigravettian or Magdalenian sites.